Ugh, I really hate that argument. It is a poorly thought out argument that was originally created to defend poorly written pieces of fiction that has, through the years, spread everywhere including into topics such as this.

Right, but that isn't really the argument in play here. In this instance, the argument is deployed against the assertion it is believable that Batman would intimidate criminals, but that the trunks would militate against that. You have to go back a few pages to see how the chain has developed, but the comparison of thing criticised and thing accepted was initially quite direct.

Yeah if they put a little thought and work, definetely. I decided to gather in one post some of my past manips to showcase the point of trunks and give a better idea. Imagine what some professional designers could come up with. Right click>open image in new tab to view full size

Ugh, I really hate that argument. It is a poorly thought out argument that was originally created to defend poorly written pieces of fiction that has, through the years, spread everywhere including into topics such as this.

Just because someone created a universe where x can happen does not mean y and z can happen in that same universe too. There are different kinds of realism and unrealism in fiction. Universes still have a set of rules they have to play by - rules established in this universe from the beginning. There are universes where sci-fi is real but there is no magic. There are universes gods are real but where alternate universes aren't. There are universes where superpowers/extraordinary abilities exist but the way people react to them are exactly like how we in real life would react to them (which is the case with MOS). Whatever the case is, things have to be logical in the context of their respective universe.

The same applies to your example. I'll play devil's advocate and answer your question from the perspective of a "trunks hater". I can buy superpowers existing in this universe because they're realistic in the context of this universe (even though they're unrealistic in the context of our own universe) but I cannot buy that a guy would wear trunks on the outside because the way in which people think and act in this universe have not been shown heightened to that extent.

This is a good point, but I don't think it applies to the trunks argument. This world has already established heroes wearing overly flamboyant
costumes. Trunks aren't really going to make them look any sillier. Were this a Superhero world like the original Xmen films, then I would agree. But we already have Superman in a ridiculous outfit.

I just feel like people want the trunks because they're used to it and nothing more. For example (and be honest with yourselves here) if we'd never ever had trunks on the batman suit would ANYBODY be suggesting they bring that into the design now? Anybody suggesting that would be ridiculed immediately.

There simply is no reason or good argument for them beyond 'theyve just always been there and I'm used to it, so why not use them?'

__________________
"No great genius has ever existed without some touch of madness." - Aristotle

I just feel like people want the trunks because they're used to it and nothing more. For example (and be honest with yourselves here) if we'd never ever had trunks on the batman suit would ANYBODY be suggesting they bring that into the design now? Anybody suggesting that would be ridiculed immediately.
'

Can the same not be said about pretty much every other part of the costume?

What if batman never had long pointed ears?
Would people not be "ridiculed immediately" for suggesting that something so silly be added to the suit?

What about the bat on his chest?
Does the guy dressed as a bat need a bat on his chest?

Yeah if they put a little thought and work, definetely. I decided to gather in one post some of my past manips to showcase the point of trunks and give a better idea. Imagine what some professional designers could come up with. Right click>open image in new tab to view full size

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Some pretty good manips there. I'd have to say that the one on the top right is my favourite. Though I'd maybe prefer something trunkless and not and the cloth feel a bit more solid and not look like it's tights over something else. But overall I wouldn't turn my nose up at it if the movie did something similar.

__________________
Lady Luck is smiling at me. She knows something I don't.

Avi Arad was to Spider-man what Jon Peters was like to Superman. Which makes Venom his giant effin' spider.

I just feel like people want the trunks because they're used to it and nothing more. For example (and be honest with yourselves here) if we'd never ever had trunks on the batman suit would ANYBODY be suggesting they bring that into the design now? Anybody suggesting that would be ridiculed immediately.

You're basically asking us what our preferences would be if Batman's visual iconography as we know it never existed, which isn't a fair question. Would anyone be asking for Superman to wear red and blue if J&J had decided to dress him in green and silver?

Quote:

There simply is no reason or good argument for them beyond 'theyve just always been there and I'm used to it, so why not use them?'

It all comes down to personal preference and execution. Batman wouldn't look objectively sillier if he wore briefs.

I just feel like people want the trunks because they're used to it and nothing more. For example (and be honest with yourselves here) if we'd never ever had trunks on the batman suit would ANYBODY be suggesting they bring that into the design now? Anybody suggesting that would be ridiculed immediately.

There simply is no reason or good argument for them beyond 'theyve just always been there and I'm used to it, so why not use them?'

Even if that was the only argument. so what? That's as good a reason as "the trunks look stupid."
And as to the point in your first paragraph, I would argue the opposite point, if no-one (I blame Burton for this specifically) had ever done a Bat-suit without the trunks would we be having this argument now? No, we wouldn't. Since we have had both with and without, your point (and mine by extension) is invalid.

__________________
Little fly upon the wall,
Ain't you got no friends at all?
Wanna see God?
*splat*

As to the rest, my point is that the trunks are completely useless functionally, do not look good in a modern context, and only serve to make Bruce look even more insane than he already is. so please explain to me why having trunks is better than not having trunks in a logical intelligent way so I can understand why people are so adamant about it. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed as simpleminded fanboy ism to many many posters. If you're okay with that then fine but I'd like to think there's at least some thought behind it. Because bathead, no it's not the same to intentionally keep something that looks stupid as it is to remove it because it adds absolutely nothing to his look or character, and I'm honestly baffled people would actually think that.

__________________
"No great genius has ever existed without some touch of madness." - Aristotle

Stranger still is your inability to appreciate that someone can enjoy something they know is absurd. I don't know why you have adopted this position. All fantasy and almost all science fiction has a degree of absurdity. It is not, on the whole, enjoyed by the masses because it holds up a mirror to mundane reality; it is enjoyed as escapism, allegory, or wish fulfillment.

There is nothing wrong with that; but it is farcical to pretend that the Batman mythos in its entirety is a work of sombre verisimilitude, punctured only by a pair of external trunks.

It doesn't show that at all. What is the reasoning or evidence behind this statement?

Have you seen many films? Is it really your opinion that they are incompatible with absurdity? You appear to claim an understanding of Snyder's "film universe", and what would be compatible with it, but did you catch a movie called "Man of Steel"? That had a space alien that came as a baby from a planet millions of lightyears away, where people rode around on four-winged reptiles, and the baby grew up to be able to fly and lift oil rigs with his bare hands. But get this- the alien looked exactly like one of us!

Would it be impossible for trunks to be worn over one's leggings, in these deeply realistic "film universe"?

I...know.

Alright, alright, I guess I misunderstood your use of "absurdity" - I'll give you that, so my apologies. I guess I just don't use that word when it comes to describing things I enjoy. With that said, I did see MoS and think I somewhat understand what Snyder/Goyer are trying to build with that film. To me, it didn't come across as too cheesy/comic-booky as other renditions have in the past.

No one said the film was intended to be "deeply realistic" by any means, but it just depicts the comic book world in a slightly more realistic tone. I don't think it's impossible for "trunks to be worn over one's leggings" in the MoS universe, but I feel that the people in that "realistic" Metropolis and Gotham would also have questioned the trunks design in such a modern time, since again, trunks were only ever used because they reflected the costumes of early 20th century gymnastic/strongman/circus performers. Superman started this trend back in the day and, it seems, has ended it now as well. Let trunks live on in the comics, for however long it has left (i.e. new 52 designs) and let the films show these characters in a way that fits the times.

As to the rest, my point is that the trunks are completely useless functionally, do not look good in a modern context, and only serve to make Bruce look even more insane than he already is. so please explain to me why having trunks is better than not having trunks in a logical intelligent way so I can understand why people are so adamant about it. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed as simpleminded fanboy ism to many many posters. If you're okay with that then fine but I'd like to think there's at least some thought behind it.

The majority? Maybe, but not all. You can argue it all you want, but there really is absolutely no point to him wearing a bat logo on his chest. "Completely useless, functionally." There is no credible reason for that to exist, but apparently, no-one has a problem with that.

__________________
Little fly upon the wall,
Ain't you got no friends at all?
Wanna see God?
*splat*

Even if that was the only argument. so what? Thats's as good a reason as "the trunks look stupid."
And as to the point in your first paragraph, I would argue the opposite point, if no-one (I blame Burton for this specifically) had ever done a Bat-suit without the trunks would we be having this argument now? No, we wouldn't. Since we have had both with and without, your point (and mine by extension) is invalid.

Actually, I think you prove his point even further. Since we haven't had a batsuit with trunks on film to this point, why revert back to something that hasn't been there? Let the comics have the trunks (which, again, seem to be fading out a bit as it is) and keep the live action films without. I mean you may be right, if Burton had done a good suit with trunks it probably wouldn't be topic of conversation now, but he didn't. I'm sure the producers wanted to take the character in a more dark, believeable route and said, "What if we left off the trunks?" The people making the decisions liked that idea and the rest of history.

Edit: this turned out to be a spookily close replica of Bathead's post, above.

I think it's a bit unfair to reduce an actual argument (no function, looks aesthetically bad, adds nothing to the character) to be of equal value to the argument that 'might as well, it's been there for years.' THAT is stupid. But who cares, I won't be bothered by trunks if they see them since I'm sure Snyder would make it look good, I'm just sayin there seems to be no actual functional or aesthetic reason to keep it.

__________________
"No great genius has ever existed without some touch of madness." - Aristotle

There is a purpose to the symbol- it's a symbol. Batman presumably wants to develop the icon to become something independent of his own physical form, which is a good idea for one man trying to fight a personal war against crime in a huge city.

As to the trunks- there is no prima facie reason for them, just as their is no prima facie reason for the gauntlet fins. But Nolan/Goyer trilogy invented a use for them as defensive weapons or climbing claws. A comparable reason could be introduced for the trunks, such as that they allow Batman to wear a groin box externally over a form-fitting costume, without looking like he has huge armoured man-meat. In fact, that reason makes sense if we accept that Batman wants to be somewhat protected without being visibly so.

Or better still, we could have a movie that doesn't explain every little detail away into tedium.

Does anyone think the possibility of that supposed Batman suit concept drawing of Ben that we discussed several pages back may possibly be what we are getting? I know this may seem ridiculous and I am just thinking out loud here but.... The suit was grey with a black cowl and black cape, gold bat emblem. Plus the cowl design looked similar to the Lee Bermejo design. Some of these things listed here have been brought up several times in these threads. Plus when Kevin Smith said something on the lines of "and there wasn't a bat nipple any where on the costume" that same concept drawing said no bat nipples, I know this was probably just a joke and fan made concept drawing, but I just cant help but to wonder about this slightly.

Again, just thinking out loud as I try to piece everything together on clues of what this suit will look like.

The majority? Maybe, but not all. You can argue it all you want, but there really is absolutely no point to him wearing a bat logo on his chest. "Completely useless, functionally." There is no credible reason for that to exist, but apparently, no-one has a problem with that.

Actually Nolan's batman gave that a true purpose - it was meant to be a symbol criminals feared and gave citizens hope. As evidenced by the bat signal and the kid drawing symbols in tdkr. That's why he wears it. It does have a function even if it doesn't physically help him be batman.

Regwec, those kinds of explanations do add credence to him having something in that area - but does not address the fact that it has to be a separate tone from the rest of his costume.

__________________
"No great genius has ever existed without some touch of madness." - Aristotle

Actually Nolan's batman gave that a true purpose - it was meant to be a symbol criminals feared and gave citizens hope. As evidenced by the bat signal and the kid drawing symbols in tdkr. That's why he wears it. It does have a function even if it doesn't physically help him be batman.

Sort of agree- see above- but that idea certainly wasn't invented by Nolan or Goyer.

Although they don't resemble any species of bat ears that I know of don't they serve to make him look like a bat ? same as his cape.

Right,but would they be respected as suggestions for a live action batsuit if batman never had them originally?

If batman had nothing on top of his cowl for years and years and years and then some guy on some forum said:
"You know what would look cool on the costume? Two long spikes jutting off the top of his head.
Not anything that looks like actual bat ears....SPIKES"

As to the rest, my point is that the trunks are completely useless functionally, do not look good in a modern context, and only serve to make Bruce look even more insane than he already is. so please explain to me why having trunks is better than not having trunks in a logical intelligent way so I can understand why people are so adamant about it. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed as simpleminded fanboy ism to many many posters. If you're okay with that then fine but I'd like to think there's at least some thought behind it. Because bathead, no it's not the same to intentionally keep something that looks stupid as it is to remove it because it adds absolutely nothing to his look or character, and I'm honestly baffled people would actually think that.

I agree wholeheartedly - even in that "unrealistic universe", I can't believe that a billionaire, wanting to dress like a bat and fight crime, would design and wear a suit that had trunks. How would he have arrived at this look? It doesn't have to be explained in the movie, but I'd think a decision like that would have needed to be made logically - I just don't see that happening with the inclusion of such an antiquated look.